In this video, it seems to me that I can hear great sorrow in Dr. Deming’s voice — the voice of a grieving prophet who sees how wonderful the world could be and is grieved because it will not change. Dr. Deming urges transformation. He says we should not seek to “remodel the prison,” but, we — as a society, a school, a workplace, a family, a world — we must become transformed into something new.

deserves to be replayed and replayed.

The League of Women Voters is now showing their video of the five Ketttering Board candidates on Channel 21.  It was taped at the MVCC building on Alex Bell last week.  In the program each condidate speaks five times — in rotating order:  An opening statement, separate answers to three different questions, and a closing statement.  This video shows my five responses.

Part of the theme I am attempting to develop in the campaign is the importance of transparency, so, in this video, I decided to set a good example and talk about issues the other candidates avoided — the need for a new tax next year, the teachers’ raise, etc.  Staying quiet, avoiding transparency, is usually considered the smart choice.  It seems voters who disagree are quick to punish, while voters who agree are slow to reward.

My best response, I believe, is my answer to the third question, in which I say that Kettering Schools should not be content to simply play catch-up with the top districts, but, Kettering should be a leader in education and should redefine the purpose of public education, away from the current academic tests and toward a whole new definition of excellence.

Somehow the sound and video are not in synch. The new iMovie has the tools to make the correction — but I don’t think I’ll take the time to try to redo the whole thing.

In yesterday’s DDN editorial, “Maus, Gilmore, Bayless best picks for Kettering school board,” the DDN recommended, regardless that there are two good challengers, that Kettering voters stick with the three current board members who are seeking reelection

The DDN in its editorial seems to try extra hard to say nice things about the two candidates it rejected — the also-rans, the challengers — myself and Jim Brown.    The DDN says, “It was fortunate that Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown chose to run. They have made the debate in this race more fruitful.” The DDN describes Mr. Brown and me as, “impressive and pushing the right issues.”

So, given the fact that all candidates to the Kettering Board are, “very good candidates,”  if the names had been put in a hat, there could have been ten different combinations of three winners.  But the DDN chose all current board members, the incumbents, as the “best picks.”

The DDN’s explanation for choosing all three incumbents over the two “impressive” challengers?  The DDN explains in the last paragraph, “They (Mr. Bock and Mr. Brown) have not made a strong enough case that they would be better.”

Yikes.  In the 90 minute group interview, one of my goals was to show my personality, show that I know the rules of manners.  I tried to make a case for change and I thought the DDN would pick up on the themes that Mr. Brown and I presented, but I guess not.

I do intend on writing a letter — I will post it later today — to the DDN about this little bombshell: “He  (speaking of me) rubbed some in the district the wrong way by campaigning against Kettering’s necessary renewal levy last May.” During the group interview, there was not a peep about my actions during the 6.9 mill levy.  If the editor had intended on dropping this bombshell in the published article, then it seems I should have had some opportunity, during the group interview, to make some input into the matter, but I had none.  So to put this accusation in an editorial as if it is a matter of fact is unfair.

If I had sought to “campaign against the levy,” I certainly would have done more than make blog posts (see here, here, and here).  I would have done more than, two days before the election,  deliver a note of explanation to voters in my precinct.   Kettering Schools has 64 precincts.  I visited voters in only one.  I would have made large signs or written a letter to the DDN.  My efforts cannot accurately be described as a “campaign against the levy.” Defeating the levy was not my motive.  I feel the DDN owes me a little space to explain.

During the DDN group interview, I did indicate that I objected to the way that the 6.9 mill renewal levy was advertised.   Part of my case for change is that the present leadership has shown policies concerning transparency and citizen education that must be changed if Kettering is to fulfill its potential.  Trifling with the trust of the public is very unwise, because the foundation for school improvement must be built on public trust.